Common Objects Common Gestures

Adriana Ionascu, David Scott

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The subtle, intimate ways in which we all ‘make do’ with objects (as makers and as users) amount to and account for the objects’multiple histories and meanings.Our experience of using objects is situated in an elusive, subliminal, fluid and alterable territory that evades precise definition or classification.To some extent, the subjective relationships between people and things lies beyond the reach ofthe makers: how then do objects enter people’s waysof use and how and when (or to what end) are they used?
LanguageEnglish
Pages86-89
JournalCeramics Art and Perception
Volume68
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2007

Fingerprint

Gesture
Subliminal
History

Keywords

  • everyday use
  • value system
  • body response
  • emotion

Cite this

Ionascu, Adriana ; Scott, David. / Common Objects Common Gestures. In: Ceramics Art and Perception. 2007 ; Vol. 68. pp. 86-89.
@article{ce1c2becaf294461bca53c3ab326cece,
title = "Common Objects Common Gestures",
abstract = "The subtle, intimate ways in which we all ‘make do’ with objects (as makers and as users) amount to and account for the objects’multiple histories and meanings.Our experience of using objects is situated in an elusive, subliminal, fluid and alterable territory that evades precise definition or classification.To some extent, the subjective relationships between people and things lies beyond the reach ofthe makers: how then do objects enter people’s waysof use and how and when (or to what end) are they used?",
keywords = "everyday use, value system, body response, emotion",
author = "Adriana Ionascu and David Scott",
note = "Reference text: REFERENCES: 1. Fulton-Suri (2000) observes that objects are adapted, extended and reused in flexibleways: “Human beings have evolved with imagination and ability to create andmake do.” 2. InMartinHeidegger’s existentialist view, things can be used as tools. 3. Baudrillard, J. 1996. The SystemofObjects, tr. J. Benedict, London:Verso. 4. As Baudrillard says: the “systems of human behaviour and [the] relationships that result therefrom”. 5. Bourriaud,N. 2001. Today’sArt Practice.Nicolas BourriaudConference. 6. Schouwenberg, L. 2004. ‘Familiar –Not so Familiar’, in SimplyDroog, 10 +1 Years of Creating Innovation andDiscussion. Amsterdam:DroogDesign Publishing. 7.Galloway (2005). The Studio Potter, vol. 33, no.2, June. 8. Kanjiro Kawai in Leach, B. (1940). A Potters Book, London: Faber, 1940, p17. 9. Cooper, E. 2005. ‘The Ordinary and the Extraordinary, in Table Manners Catalogue, Table Manners Exhibition’, Contemporary InternationalCeramics.CraftsCouncil. p7-9. 10. As Bourdieu observes, “Form is first of all a matter of rhythm,which implies expectations, pauses, restraints It is the expression of a habitus of order; restraint and proprietymay not be abdicated.” 11. Frederick suggests the metaphorical function for ceramics. Frederick, W. 2003. ‘The Inescapable, Indivisible Essence of Pottery’, in The Art of African Clay: Ancient andHistoricAfrican Ceramics.Chicago, Illinois. 12. Paz,Octavio.Use and Contemplation, in Praise ofHands, p17. 13. Bourdieu’s terms, in Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the Judgment of taste. tr. R.Nice. London, Routeledge andKegan Paul. 14. TheodorAdorno’s analysis of artifacts drewattention to themovements they demand of their users and that the subordination of things to pure functionality is withering their experience. Weaver, Richard. 1948. Ideas have Consequences. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. Lefteri,C.2003. Ceramics.Materials for InspirationalDesign. Switzzerland: Rotovision.",
year = "2007",
month = "6",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "68",
pages = "86--89",
journal = "Ceramics Art and Perception",
issn = "1035-1841",

}

Common Objects Common Gestures. / Ionascu, Adriana; Scott, David.

In: Ceramics Art and Perception, Vol. 68, 01.06.2007, p. 86-89.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Common Objects Common Gestures

AU - Ionascu, Adriana

AU - Scott, David

N1 - Reference text: REFERENCES: 1. Fulton-Suri (2000) observes that objects are adapted, extended and reused in flexibleways: “Human beings have evolved with imagination and ability to create andmake do.” 2. InMartinHeidegger’s existentialist view, things can be used as tools. 3. Baudrillard, J. 1996. The SystemofObjects, tr. J. Benedict, London:Verso. 4. As Baudrillard says: the “systems of human behaviour and [the] relationships that result therefrom”. 5. Bourriaud,N. 2001. Today’sArt Practice.Nicolas BourriaudConference. 6. Schouwenberg, L. 2004. ‘Familiar –Not so Familiar’, in SimplyDroog, 10 +1 Years of Creating Innovation andDiscussion. Amsterdam:DroogDesign Publishing. 7.Galloway (2005). The Studio Potter, vol. 33, no.2, June. 8. Kanjiro Kawai in Leach, B. (1940). A Potters Book, London: Faber, 1940, p17. 9. Cooper, E. 2005. ‘The Ordinary and the Extraordinary, in Table Manners Catalogue, Table Manners Exhibition’, Contemporary InternationalCeramics.CraftsCouncil. p7-9. 10. As Bourdieu observes, “Form is first of all a matter of rhythm,which implies expectations, pauses, restraints It is the expression of a habitus of order; restraint and proprietymay not be abdicated.” 11. Frederick suggests the metaphorical function for ceramics. Frederick, W. 2003. ‘The Inescapable, Indivisible Essence of Pottery’, in The Art of African Clay: Ancient andHistoricAfrican Ceramics.Chicago, Illinois. 12. Paz,Octavio.Use and Contemplation, in Praise ofHands, p17. 13. Bourdieu’s terms, in Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the Judgment of taste. tr. R.Nice. London, Routeledge andKegan Paul. 14. TheodorAdorno’s analysis of artifacts drewattention to themovements they demand of their users and that the subordination of things to pure functionality is withering their experience. Weaver, Richard. 1948. Ideas have Consequences. Chicago: University ofChicago Press. Lefteri,C.2003. Ceramics.Materials for InspirationalDesign. Switzzerland: Rotovision.

PY - 2007/6/1

Y1 - 2007/6/1

N2 - The subtle, intimate ways in which we all ‘make do’ with objects (as makers and as users) amount to and account for the objects’multiple histories and meanings.Our experience of using objects is situated in an elusive, subliminal, fluid and alterable territory that evades precise definition or classification.To some extent, the subjective relationships between people and things lies beyond the reach ofthe makers: how then do objects enter people’s waysof use and how and when (or to what end) are they used?

AB - The subtle, intimate ways in which we all ‘make do’ with objects (as makers and as users) amount to and account for the objects’multiple histories and meanings.Our experience of using objects is situated in an elusive, subliminal, fluid and alterable territory that evades precise definition or classification.To some extent, the subjective relationships between people and things lies beyond the reach ofthe makers: how then do objects enter people’s waysof use and how and when (or to what end) are they used?

KW - everyday use

KW - value system

KW - body response

KW - emotion

M3 - Article

VL - 68

SP - 86

EP - 89

JO - Ceramics Art and Perception

T2 - Ceramics Art and Perception

JF - Ceramics Art and Perception

SN - 1035-1841

ER -